" r::-FAF;TMENT OF 

TRAi^SPOBTATlOH ^ 

sv.CKtTOPERAilONS I S.|P= 

" U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION=' 

"~- ill o a I 31 OFFICE OF HEARINGS " ^Lh=D 

^'" ''^^' ' ^ WASHINGTON, D.C. ^UG - 2 2011 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Complainant, 

HEARING DOCKET 

V. FAA Docket No. [To be Assigned] 

Judge Jeslyn E. Sullivan 

FDMS No. FAA-20] 1-0480 

DRYTAC CORPORATION ^^^ ^ ^^ ^ ^Q^^H^ 

Respondent. 

ANSWER 

COMES NOW your respondent Drytac Corporation ("Drytac" or "Respondent"), by 

counsel, and states as follows as its Answer filed herein pursuant to 14 CFR § 13.1-209; 

1. Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 

2. With respect to paragraph 2 of the Complaint. Respondent admits only that it 

knowingly offered the referenced shipment to United Parcel Service for transportation by air. 

Stating further, Respondent respcctfiilly avers that any violation committed was inadvertent and 

unintended. Accordingly, to the extent that the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Complaint are 

intended to infer that Respondent knowingly or intentionally violated any applicable statutes or 

regulations regarding the transportation of hazardous materials, such inference is denied and 

strict proof demanded thereof. 

3. Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 

4. Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint. 

5. Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 5 of the Complaint. 

6. Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Complaint. 
/ • 

7. Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 7 of the Complaint. 

S. Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Complaint. 

9- With respect to paragraph 9 of the Complaint, Respondent states that the 

Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations speak for themselves, and 

Respondent denies any allegations inconsistent therewith. Stating further. Respondent 

respectfully avers that the alleged classification of the shipped material as a hazardous material 

under the HMR pursuant to paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 of the Complaint 

is a question of law which Respondent can neither admit or deny as a factual matter. 

10. Subject to the qualifications of paragraph 9 above. Respondent admits the 

allegations of paragraph 10 of the Complaint and all subparts thereof. 

11. Subject to the qualifications of paragraph 9 above Respondent admits the 

allegations of paragraph 11 of the Complaint and all subparts thereof. 

12. Subject to the qualifications of paragraph 9 above Respondent admits the 

allegations of paragraph 12 of the Complaint and all subparts thereof. 

13. Subject to the qualifications of paragraph 9 above Respondent admits the 

allegations of paragraph 13 of the Complaint and all subparts thereof. 

14. Subject to the qualifications of paragraph 9 above Respondent admits the 

allegations of paragraph 14 of the Complaint and all subparts thereof. 

15. Subject to the qualifications of paragraph 9 above Respondent admits the 

allegations of paragraph 15 of the Complaint and all subparts thereof. 

16. Subject to the qualifications of paragraph 9 above Respondent admits the 

allegations of paragraph 16 of the Complaint and all subparts thereof. 
17. Subject to the qualifications of paragraph 9 above Respondent admits the 

allegations of paragraph 17 of the Complaint and all subparts thereof. 

18. Subject to the qualifications of paragraph 9 above Respondent admits the 

allegations of paragraph 18 of the Complaint and all subparts thereof. 

19. With respect to paragraph 19 of the Complaint and numbered subparts 1 through 

19 thereof, Respondent states that the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials 

Regulations speak for themselves, and Respondent denies any allegations inconsistent therewith. 

20. With respect to paragraph 20 of the Complaint, Respondent states that the cited 

statue and regulations promulgated thereunder speak for themselves, and Respondent denies any 

allegations inconsistent therewith. 

21. Respondent denies the allegations of paragraph 21 of the Complaint. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

22. Drytac respectfully avers that the sanctions requested by the Complainant are 

excessive under the facts and circumstances of the present case. Specifically, Dr>lac notes that: 

a. The subject violation was the first violation by Drytac (in its 25+ year 

existence) of any Department of Transportation regulations or applicable statutes. 

b. The subject violation was inadvertent and unintended. 

c. While any hazardous material spill or contamination is a serious matter, 

the degree and gravity of the subject violation is relatively small, being limited to the 

release of V2 gallon or less of a common, Class 3 flammable liquid, only a small portion 

of which ultimately escaped the outermost shipping container. 

d. The violation was the result of an isolated inadvertent act by a single 

member of Drytac's sales staff who is not typically involved in the shipment of materials 
(hazardous or otherwise). Specifically, the shipment in question was intended to be used 

by Drytac sales persormel for demonstration purposes at a trade show. The subject 

shipment was not part of Drytac's ordinary and customary shipments of inventory and 

materials to customers, and was not originated by or handled tlirough Drytac personnel 

typically charged with the shipping of materials. 

e. Drytac has taken substantial post-incident steps to prevent any future 

violations, including attendance by key personnel at hazardous material seminars and 

firm-wide training and notifications. 

f. Drytac is a small business employing 31 employees in 6 locations across 

the United States. The recent economic downturn has been difficult for Drytac and has 

resulted in the elimination of 5 positions with the company and in the closure of 2 

locations countrywide. The employees that remain have been required to accept cuts in 

benefits and wage freezes. The sanctions requested by the Complainant represent a 

significant and unsustainable burden to Drytac and will materially and negatively impact 

Drytac's financial position on a go-forward basis. 

g. While the Complainant has identified nineteen or more specific violations, 

such violations all resulted from a single, discreet act, to v/iX: the unfortunate decision of 

a Drytac salesperson to place a gallon of isopropyl alcohol in an urmiarked air shipping 

container. Given that the violation involved a single, isolated action, it is inappropriate 

for the Complainant to compound the requested sanction by essentially adding up 

recommended .sanction amount for each and every individuated violation that could be 

noted with respect to such single act. 
23. In short, Drytac respectfully avers that pursuant to the provisions of FAA Order 

2150.3 B (Oct 1, 2007) and other applicable guidance, the mitigating factors present in the 

current case warrant a sanction that is substantially lower than the amounts requested by the 

Complainant in this Case. 

WHEREFORE, your Respondent Drytac Corporation respectfully requests that this 

matter be dismissed or, in the alternative, that the sanctions assessed against the Respondent be 

reduced as the circumstances and equities of the case may require. 

DRYTAC CORPORATION 

By: y?A^(^^ . 

Meredith I^Yoder<Counsel 

Meredith L. Yoder, Esq. (Virginia State Bar # 48951) 

PARKER, POLLARD, WILTON & PEADEN, P.C. 

6802 Paragon Place, Suite 300 

Richmond, Virginia 23230-1655 

(804) 262-3600 - telephone 

(804) 262-3284 -facsimile 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Answer was mailed 

U.S. Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to the following parties as of this 28"^ day of 

July, 2011: 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2W1000 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Hon. Jeslyn E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Gerald A. Ellis, Esq. 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park-GA 30337 

(Original and I Copy) 

(1 Copy) 

(1 Copy) 

Meredi^'L. Y^der, Counsel